Jürg Jecklin promoted a compressor i the 80th because he argued that dynamic range on modern recordings is too high. Pianissimo disapears in the backround noise ( 35dB i my place, i live on the country side in a very quiet environmement, at least on the weekend after 10´0 clock) and fortissimo hurts the ear because it gets into distotion.
Let's put flys and meatballs separately.
What you call dynamic range in guitar amps, is not a dynamic range that is by definition is a range between unacceptable noises to unacceptable distortions.
Guitar tube amplifiers and high-end tube amplifiers are totally different beasts. I would not generalize what is good and desirable for a guitar amplifier to what is good and desirable for high-end amplifier.
What you call dynamic range in guitar amps, is not a dynamic range that is by definition is a range between unacceptable noises to unacceptable distortions.
Guitar tube amplifiers and high-end tube amplifiers are totally different beasts. I would not generalize what is good and desirable for a guitar amplifier to what is good and desirable for high-end amplifier.
In the 80'th symmetrical emitter followers were common for outputs, as well as diffstages for inputs, so it is one half of an explanation. Another half is, loss of what people call here microdynamics, i.e. higher distortions of signals of lower levels, and widening distortions' spectra with lover levels. We can hear levels much lower than background noise, so it's not an excuse.
It's like every other site ever put up by these self-proclaimed "guru's": there are plenty of gold nuggets, but you'll first need to pull on your hip boots because you'll be digging through a lot of ripe, smelly manure along the way.
Who cares? he may think SETs are all wrong, and a "scam", but has he actually listened to one? What kind of music does he like? He doesn't answer those questions.
Absolute nonsense! NFB, used correctly, definitely does reduce audible distortion.
Lenard also links to Rod Elliot whose site is also full of nonsense.
Hi Wavebourn,
I did not want to compare guitar amps and high-end amps in general (one works as an effect box/instrument the other as a reproduction unit). I am sorry if it sounded like that. The comparison should have pointed out the listening impressions of some musicians and/or music listeners and their subjective perception of "dynamics" or "dynamic range". What is perceived and what is actually the case and can be measured might sometimes be entirely different.
Maybe I did not get my message across clear enough.
I am fully aware of the fact that guitar amplifiers are VERY limited in their dynamic range and not linear at all (they are not intended to be linear).
Well, the noise floor of some makes/models is a completely different topic and could be much lower...
😀
I was just wondering if some listeners actually perceive a smaller/more limited dynamic range in their amplifier-of-choice as "higher dynamic" because small signals are perceived louder due to a weak compression effect.
And I don't want to judge about that. Listening preferences are a matter of personal taste after all.
Just a thought... 😕
Martin
Totally agree. What is perceived as dynamic, is a timbral change more than change of loudness.
I was thinking about your statement and got to conclusion that you actually hit the nail: if timbral change and loudness change contradict to each other it sounds artificial, and such distortions would be easily perceived, even on subtle levels around noise levels (micro dynamic, huh?). 😉
I did not like the Jecklin circuit at all, even in those days i already had Threshold and Levinson equipment. I am just reporting what people tryed. For me micro dynamics is the ability of the system to decode acoustic information and other tiny signals like the noise it makes when you physically use an acoustic instrument. On a system that decodes micro dynamics you can here all kind of backround signals for eample birds singing or sound that insects make. One example is a Brubeck recording he did outdoors. A system without microdynamics sounds steryle and lifeless. The old Quad ELS57 i used for many years was one of the few speakers in it´s day that could resolve those signals so it is not only a problem of the electronics but also a boundary in speakers.
I'm going to take another stab at this microdynamics definition...
It's the ability of an audio reproduction system to effortlessly and naturally reproduce low-level dynamic and related timbral details. These have to be present in the recording, of course.
--
The point that timbral changes need to match dynamic changes sounds good to me.
From what I've heard in systems I've had or used:
Why is it that transformer coupled circuits often seem to portray low level details more smoothly than RC or DC coupled circuits?
Why is it that triode amps w/ no NFB seem to do this better than the much more linear SS or pentode amps w/ NFB?
Why is it that the low level dynamics sound more exciting and natural from a top-shelf LP playback system than from CD, when the CD is supposedly many times more linear?
Why is it that SACD in a stock player does this a little better than CD, but not so well as a really good LP playback setup?
Is it all subjective? Maybe so. Especially since I know from direct experience that a judiciously used, high quality audio compressor can really bring 'sparkle' and 'life' to an otherwise blah-sounding recording. I used to think of compression as magic pixie dust on a recording. Recording engineers learn that it helps the recording 'gel.' It sounds more cohesive, less strained, less 'thin' or 'raspy.' And all the compressor is doing is making quiet sounds louder. It's a magical subjective effect when used well, but not what we think of as 'linear.'
I'll buy the idea that SET amps (no matter how good) act as really nice compressors. That would explain to me why they sound so good on chamber music, small group jazz, solo singer-songwriters, etc. But most SET's I've heard really can't do full-scale orchestral music very well... they make magic in the quieter sections, but cloud up when things get big, loud and complex.
Incidentally, while the legendary compressors from days of yore were tubed, some of the very best are solid-state.
--
It's the ability of an audio reproduction system to effortlessly and naturally reproduce low-level dynamic and related timbral details. These have to be present in the recording, of course.
--
The point that timbral changes need to match dynamic changes sounds good to me.
From what I've heard in systems I've had or used:
Why is it that transformer coupled circuits often seem to portray low level details more smoothly than RC or DC coupled circuits?
Why is it that triode amps w/ no NFB seem to do this better than the much more linear SS or pentode amps w/ NFB?
Why is it that the low level dynamics sound more exciting and natural from a top-shelf LP playback system than from CD, when the CD is supposedly many times more linear?
Why is it that SACD in a stock player does this a little better than CD, but not so well as a really good LP playback setup?
Is it all subjective? Maybe so. Especially since I know from direct experience that a judiciously used, high quality audio compressor can really bring 'sparkle' and 'life' to an otherwise blah-sounding recording. I used to think of compression as magic pixie dust on a recording. Recording engineers learn that it helps the recording 'gel.' It sounds more cohesive, less strained, less 'thin' or 'raspy.' And all the compressor is doing is making quiet sounds louder. It's a magical subjective effect when used well, but not what we think of as 'linear.'
I'll buy the idea that SET amps (no matter how good) act as really nice compressors. That would explain to me why they sound so good on chamber music, small group jazz, solo singer-songwriters, etc. But most SET's I've heard really can't do full-scale orchestral music very well... they make magic in the quieter sections, but cloud up when things get big, loud and complex.
Incidentally, while the legendary compressors from days of yore were tubed, some of the very best are solid-state.
--
Sure. That's why I prefer phased arrays: tiny displacements of lighter cones are needed for the same loudness.
As my dad used to say, "Nightingales win by quality, sparrows win by quantity".
Not exactly a definition, more like a mashup. 😀 Now you have to define "low-level dynamic detail." I'm reminded of a friend of mine from France who has excellent English. We tried teaching him the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." He said, "I oonderstan each of zees words, but I do not oonderstan at all what zees means."
Tube SE amps a first add the less errors the softer is the sound. It sounds very natural to our perception apparatus, we hear this many ages during the evolution of living beings, we got used to it, we expect it, we don't hear distortions caused by air that transfer sound, by surfaces that reflect sound, we filter them out. The same way we filter out distortions of reproduction tract, if they mimic non-linearities of natural media like an air and reflecting surfaces.
Push-pull amps, especially transistor ones, constructed such a way so they save an energy for expense of reproduction of very soft signals. When reverberation decay we expect less of harmonic, lower of their order. But transistor PP amp offers us an opposite! That's why we hear loss of subtle details, because they sound artificially!
Compression raises up low levels, so when reverberation decays it does not go beyond that point where we perceive loss of details. Especially, when gated compressors are used!
Linear measurements of such artificially sounding amps show nothing wrong, since measurement tools are not ears with brain, and do not follow sounds below noise level, and don't expect them to be like in the real nature. They ignore them assuming that distortions on such levels are inaudible. But they are, when their specter goes wider with decay!
That's why audiophiles prefer SE amps: not because of distorted fortissimo! They prefer them despite of distorted fortissimo for clean, fresh like a cold clean water, fine details, for goosebumping and breathtaking pianissimo, for sound of closes that violin player wears, sor sound of nails on strings, for the cool wind under the ceiling of a Cathedral!
Last edited:
Taking your quetion/statement at face value, it can't, of course. But again, I don't follow you - which topology are you suggesting has more distortion?
------------------------------------------------------------------
I only use the term micro dynamics because many others also use it - my preferred term for audio quality is Downward Dynamic Range (DDR) which I've tried explaining to deaf ears all over. DDR is the property of our hearing system that allows us to hear micro detail IN THE PRESENCE of high level information. A concert hall doesn't lose it's sonic character between high and low levels when a live acoustic performance is taking place in front of listeners, we can still perceive the "hall", but many poorer recording systems (especially 16/44) collapse the space when the level gets high.
The hall's character should be stably there in the home listener's room and this space should remain completely stable with level, only the band/orchestra should change level.
Poor DDR is my main complaint about music reinforcement systems - mostly have have JUNK electronics and the DDR goes from a natural live acoustic with maybe 100dB of DDR, to a louder level with hugely "cut off" microdynamics which sounds like badly done compression - but loud, with a DDR of what sounds like maybe 20 - 30 dB.
DDR is my key reference point for comparing different elctronic circuits, different parts, different cable topologies, different speaker systems. IMO and IME, all other points, flatness, tonal character, distortion etc etc are important but secondary to getting the very best DDR.
With great DDR, it just sounds far more "real".
Regards, Allen
Regular garden type. I consider topology vastly more important than tweak unobtainium parts. We leave premium parts choice up to the client, they always want to play around.
Regards, Allen
Well; I am a little bit incorrect. "Natural" distortions added by SE amps to some records as if add some "makeup" that hides damages caused by recording equipment, but again for expense of fortissimo that sounds like forte - fortissimo.
It is an alternative to compressors that are preferable to electronic music with loud drum machines and singers licking dynamic microphones.
It is an alternative to compressors that are preferable to electronic music with loud drum machines and singers licking dynamic microphones.
-DR unobtaniums were produces for places where MFBF costs A LOT. How often do you replace "non-DR" garden types? How many "non-DR" garden types you have to replace during lifetime of one "-DR"? Is it equal to the cost of one "-DR"?
Also, "-DR" is more in warranty, than in design and construction. Can you return it back to the plant, can you dismiss it's boss because your tube failed in the critical application that caused loss of Many Long Rubles, or lives, or stars in ranks?
Because most P-P amps are junk, seriously unmatched for frequency response and accurate phase splitting after the phase splitter - hence providing that great mixer, the output transformer, with two often very different signals.
A typical Audio Research power amp has two different signal paths of very different frequency responses satrting at the phase splitter, one quite direct and the other through a much longer path involving an anode follower inverter, with a large input R. This large R interacts with the tube's Miller capacitance giving a measured bandwidth of less than 20kHz, while the more direct path has three times the bandwidth. Add in the susequent phase shifts and you have a mess.
This of course leads to random cancellations and enhancements of micro signal levels - IN THE OUTPUT TRANSFORMER ITSELF - which is what you are hearing. IMO.
A SE amp doesn't have this problem, although it does often have huge levels of 2nd harmonic, which some people like.
Check out the convoluted signal path in the attached ARC D40 schematic.
Regards, Allen
Attachments
This description also matches my impression of what microdynamics is.
I also agree about the part that speakers take in reproducing microdynamics.
I agree, other than I cannot tolerate the distortion on fortissimo in large symphonic orchestra recordings (on the SET I own and heard).
Thank you Allen for your clarification.
Hi,
Excellent post. 😎
Whether one calls it DDR or microdynamics is irrelevant.
Fact is that this property, the ability of the system to repsect and folllow small changes in level is one of the major factors that let us distinguish between live and reproduced music.
Someone's playing the drums im the neighboorhood. I immediately know it wasn't a recording. I'm at least a hundred meters away. How do I know?
Someone's playing the piano in their living room one floor up, window open. I pass by. I know it's not a recording. How come?
My speakers have been designed mostly by ear. What makes people like them so much telling me they sound so "lifelike"?
Do we design audio to satisfy our measuring gear or to let us enjoy music?
Cheers, 😉
Excellent post. 😎
Whether one calls it DDR or microdynamics is irrelevant.
Fact is that this property, the ability of the system to repsect and folllow small changes in level is one of the major factors that let us distinguish between live and reproduced music.
Someone's playing the drums im the neighboorhood. I immediately know it wasn't a recording. I'm at least a hundred meters away. How do I know?
Someone's playing the piano in their living room one floor up, window open. I pass by. I know it's not a recording. How come?
My speakers have been designed mostly by ear. What makes people like them so much telling me they sound so "lifelike"?
Do we design audio to satisfy our measuring gear or to let us enjoy music?
Cheers, 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.